Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I said I would love to be. I would add that I would just love to be the manager of the Italian national football team but it is also probably unlikely to happen.

On the issue of the Bill and terrorism, I will start with an interesting statistic. The US State Department reported that only 17 US citizens were killed worldwide as a result of terrorism in 2011. That figure includes deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq and all other theatres of war. In contrast, in 2013 there were 33,636 gun-related deaths in America. We should try to keep matters in perspective.

The Act we seek to amend today, the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008, was introduced in a pre-Snowden environment, well before the revelations of the true extent of state surveillance on citizens and the chilling effect this is having on individual rights and freedoms. Instead of further militarising our response to the perceived threat of crime through increasing the powers of State security forces and deepening our police co-operation with other highly securitised states in the EU, the focus should be on restoring the right to privacy of citizens.

Today's Bill allows for the creation of special intervention units for the purpose of providing assistance in the control of a crisis situation. The idea of pumping resources into the creation of these special intervention units does not make sense when there are members of An Garda Síochána currently on incomes just above the minimum wage. On top of that, many new recruits are living in poverty due to high rents, low wages and cuts to their rent allowance. Instead of creating some unnecessary Navy Seal-type terror-busting force, we should be trying to restore pay and morale in the existing force.

This legislation is another example of states capitalising on an atmosphere of fear in order to introduce anti-terror initiatives which will give security agencies greater access to personal data and greater powers of retention. Tragic events around the world are being used as an excuse for legally extending the powers and remit of many states' security apparatuses, badly prioritising a type of dystopian national security over the individual's rights to freedom and privacy. The horrific attack on the Charlie Hebdooffice was used as justification for a new draconian surveillance Bill in France whereby the authorities can legally spy on the digital and mobile phone communications of anyone linked to a terrorist inquiry without prior authorisation from a judge.

In the case of Ireland, in December last year the ministerial order, SI 541 of 2014, was quietly passed, commencing Part 4 of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008, which is the Act today's Bill seeks to amend. This section of the legislation allows for the interception of Irish communications by the authorities of other EU member states for the prevention or investigation of a criminal offence. Under the legislation, companies that object to an intercept order could be brought before a secret court. Interestingly, the commencement of Part 3 coincided with the revelations of underwater tapping of Irish telecommunications cables by United Kingdom's GCHQ, an action which, according to the Minister for Justice and Equality, if it even happened at all, was a matter for the United Kingdom jurisdiction, in other words, out of our hands.

In response to my recent parliamentary questions on the tapping of underwater cables, the Minister for Justice and Equality stated: "The majority of citizens would accept that there should be a balance between personal privacy and public safety once the mechanisms by which such data is accessed is both legal and proportionate." I agree that there needs to be a balance between personal privacy and public safety, but it is essential that all legislation we bring in upholds the best interests of the citizen. The danger is that the terms "public interest" or "national security" will be trotted out as a mark of it being proportionate. Although it may be legal, is it proportionate that gardaí can break in to one's home, install a recording device and leave it there for three months, or that Revenue can bug one's vehicle and track one's movements for four months? Undoubtedly, terrorists spread fear. It is their stated intention. However, it is the State that allows this fear to fester and the State which takes advantage of it. This fear is what allows section 13 of the 2008 Act to place an individual's personal data entirely in the hands of the State to keep or share, as it pleases.

In 2002, the European Council framework decision on combating terrorism laid out what we should regard as terrorist activity. One of the first acts it mentions is seriously intimidating a population. Most people of independent mind would agree that if one asks what populations on the planet have been most intimidated of late, one would not have to think too hard given that over 1 million people in Iraq have been killed, Afghanistan has been a fairly tough place to live, Yemen is not easy, neither is Somalia and Syria certainly is not. I wonder if the Government would agree, given that the European Council has argued that seriously intimidating a population is a terrorist activity, that we should have serious reservations about allowing the US military machine to use Shannon Airport in order to continue to seriously intimidate populations. People are probably tired of listening to us raising this issue but, sadly, we will have to keep raising it until something changes.

Another act of terrorism is seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country. Nobody has done it better than the US military machine. One can also be deemed to be a terrorist for attacks upon a person's life which may cause death. In 2014, US military operators killed people in 133 different countries. In other words, they carried out military missions against citizens in 133 countries. There are not many more countries in the world. Only 196 play in the World Cup. There might be 200 in the world, but 133 is a frightening number.

Another terrorist offence is kidnapping or hostage taking. Any of the Members who followed the court case in Ennis when myself and Deputy Clare Daly were brought up for trying to inspect planes for possession of weapons will be aware that different individuals came forward and testified under oath that they saw guns on military planes. Different witnesses testified that certain planes were parked a long way away from the terminal building where the airport personnel were not allowed the normal procedure where they would go in, clean the plane, put on food and whatever. They would be met at the door because what was inside was not fit for their consumption. At this stage, given the leaks from the likes of Snowden, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, there are not many doubting anymore that Shannon was used for rendition flights. Are we complicit? I am not saying there were any rendition flights during the lifetime of this Government. However, the State should investigate our politicians who made the decisions that allowed Shannon Airport to be used in such a manner.

See this speech in context